“Renowned scientists and scholars” who deserve shaming

There’s a new book out to defend science, titled uncreatively The War on Science, by Lawrence Krauss. The theme is nothing new: I’d recommend instead The War on Science by Shawn Otto, or The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, both of which are well-researched single-author works that more objectively examine the people and processes that are literally targeting the institutions of science for destruction.

Krauss’s book stands out because it is completely different. Most people discussing the war on science talk about the influence of dark money, or capitalist motivations to sacrifice long term investment for short term profit, or lobby groups that shape the government for personal gain, or the undermining of the educational system to generate an uninformed citizenry. They talk about specific initiatives by special interest groups that are counter to good science. They discuss the malignant influence of reactionary religious organizations.

Not Krauss!

He has gathered 39 contributors, calling them “renowned scientists and scholars,” who are instead petty, entitled whiners who have personal grievances against the social institutions that have alienated them from the mainstream. It’s written by sex pests, racists, bigots, and defenders of genocide. They don’t like the fact that senior scientists are told not to sexually abuse junior faculty and students. They don’t like the fact that people with different ethnic backgrounds hold protests on their campuses. They resent being expected to respect aboriginal peoples in their research. They are horrified that better informed people are rejecting their old bigotries and recognizing that gender is on a spectrum. They all think that Woke is the enemy of science, and that hordes of Leftists have been battering the Ivory Tower to bring it down.

They’re all idiots.

They also have very bad timing. This series of screeds against the evils of the Left was published this summer, after the Right took control of the government and began to literally wreck science in this country, revoking grants, punishing universities, giving control of the NIH and NSF and CDC and NASA to political hacks who began dictating new directions for science, telling libraries what books they’re allowed to stock, deporting scientists and students who weren’t sufficiently “American” for their taste, enabling more religious influence into government, and basically trashing the Constitution. So now we have this book on the shelves screaming about an apocalyptic threat from gay and transgender scientists at a time when far-right conservatives are flexing their muscles and sending troops to university campuses.

Hemant Mehta has summarized multiple reviews of this wrong-headed book, and the defenses of its authors. They recognize that their timing was ludicrously bad, and all of the authors make the same goddamn stupid argument.

We wrote it before Trump was elected again, and we had no idea the Republicans would do this.

Larry Krauss has been an embarrassment for a long time.

That’s no excuse, and if you’re so ignorant you couldn’t see the Right’s agenda, despite the fact that people have been writing about it for decades, then you are in no position to publish a book that so thoroughly misses the point. And they’re still arguing even now that the True Danger is Wokeness, as Trump tears their institutions down around them.

For an example of how pig-headedly idiotic the authors are, Hemant quotes Jerry Coyne.

The book was put together before Trump began his assault on universities by punishing science grantees and by appointing people like RFK Jr. to science positions. I expected that, after this unpredictable bout of executive-branch bullying, there would be some wokesters who adopted a “whataboutery stance,” saying, “This book largely comprises attacks on how the progressive Left wing is eroding science. But Trump is dong much more damage from the Right.” And right now that is indeed the case, but Trump will be gone in a bit over 3 years, and I expect that, when Democrats take over (fingers crossed), the government will cut back strongly on interfering in the funding and production.

The effect of the Right on science, then, will probably be more temporary. In contrast, that from the Left will last a lot longer, for progressive professors who believe in nonsense like a spectrum of sex in animals will teach this nonsense to their students, and thus it will pass among academic generations. We simply cannot sit by and let progressives distort science in the cause of ideology, regardless of what the Right is doing.

(I hope Jerry is enjoying the sight of the National Guard patrolling his campus, the fucking moron.)

Unbelievable.

Hemant has an excellent summary of this abomination of a book.

The War on Science isn’t a defense of reason. It’s a monument to intellectual cowardice. Its authors, armed with petty grievances about pronouns and diversity programs, aimed their intellectual firepower on paper cuts that exist only in their minds while everyone around them is being decapitated. They act like the biggest problems in science involve grad students asking for inclusive policies, professors acknowledging biological complexity, or institutions offering STEM scholarships to underrepresented groups.

To publish such a book now, in the face of deliberate and systemic sabotage from the highest levels of government, is not only ridiculous, it’s malpractice for any half-decent scientist or science communicator. Even Jordan Peterson should be embarrassed—and that’s saying something.

Every page wasted on performative outrage over “wokeness” is a page that could have been used to sound the alarm about the real, ongoing destruction of the scientific world. And given that many of these authors have spent the past few years appealing to right-wing bigots, that could have been extremely useful.

Instead, by pretending that the greatest threat to science comes from progressive inclusion rather than authoritarian arson, Krauss and his allies have given cover to those who would dismantle our research institutions. They’re compiling propaganda for those who want to bury science under the weight of their own ignorance. They are enablers who fiddle with culture war nonsense while the laboratories burn.

Meanwhile, like most of the professors I know, I’ll continue to teach that the development of sex is a complex, gradual process with multiple variations and that gender is a social and psychological process expressed as a continuum, not because of ideology, but because that’s what the evidence says. At least, I’ll do that until I hear the jackboots marching down my hallway and the Republicans shut down my liberal arts university.

For now, though, here is the list of authors of this terrible book, every one a disgrace. Remember them. They aren’t going anywhere, and we should be prepared to publicly shame them at every opportunity.

Dorian Abbot, John Armstrong, Peter Boghossian, Maarten Boudry, Alex Byrne, Nicholas Christakis, Roger Cohen, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, Janice Fiamengo, Solveig Gold, Moti Gorin, Karleen Gribble, Carole Hooven, Geoff Horsman, Joshua Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Lawrence M. Krauss, Anna Krylov, Luana Maroja, Christian Ott, Bruce Pardy, Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, Richard Redding, Arthur Rousseau, Gad Saad, Sally Satel, Lauren Schwartz, Alan Sokal, Allesandro Strumia, Judith Suissa, Alice Sullivan, Jay Tanzman, Abigail Thompson, Amy Wax, Elizabeth Weiss, Frances Widdowson

An American president wants to declare war on the American people

Put this post by Donald Trump on Truth Social front and center when he’s tried for treason.

“I love the smell of deportations in the morning…”
Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR

He thinks it is amusing to threaten an American city of almost 3 million people with apocalyptic destruction. He’s a criminal despot.

His pretext is that crime is too high in Chicago. Unfortunately for that excuse, invading the city to deport a subset of people whose primary “crime” is being brown and speaking Spanish would not address that problem, the statistics show that crime has been declining already, and Chicago is not the most crime-ridden city in the country. That distinction belongs to cities in red states.

The four cities of populations larger than 100,000 with the highest murder rates in 2024 are in Republican states: Jackson, Mississippi (78.7 per 100,000 residents), Birmingham, Alabama (58.8), St Louis, Missouri (54.1) and Memphis, Tennessee (40.6).

…Chicago is bracing to be the next city targeted by the Trump administration. To date this year, 278 people have been killed in Chicago, 118 fewer people killed when compared with 2024. It is at pace for 412 deaths for the year, which would be a rate of about 15 per 100,000 residents. The rate is likely to be lower still than that, because homicide rates increase during summer months.

The Windy City ranked 37th in homicide rate in 2024 for cities larger than 50,000 residents in the United States. For cities with more than 100,000 residents, it placed 14th. This year, it is likely to slide farther down the list, even as violence falls to 60-year lows.

What are the National Guard going to do in Chicago, anyway? Stand around on street corners, eat deep dish pizza, guard the Bean in Millennium Park, visit the Field Museum? Trump is putting on a show, the same as renaming the Department of Defense the Department of War was an empty gesture.

Only the heterosexuals are safe

Wait, no, that’s not true — the Republicans are gunning for everyone who is tolerant of other people’s sexual orientation. The gays are just next in line.

This is reminding me of the 80s, when Ronald Reagan was leading an affable campaign of hatred. Rand Paul is a hardcore anti-gay crusader, always has been, but in the current political climate he’s more free to expose himself.

One of the people who resigned in opposition to the destruction of the CDC was Demetre Daskalakis, who Paul has decided was unfit for his position anyway.

Asked about the resignations on Tuesday (2 September), Sen. Paul said: “One of the guys that is the biggest proponent of doing all this is the guy who describes the risky behaviour that he and his lifestyle involve.

“A guy that is so far … out of the mainstream, I think most people in America would discount his opinion because of the things he said in the past. He does not represent the mainstream of anything in America,” he went on.

“He should have never had a position in government. He brags about his lifestyle, you know, this whole idea of bondage and, you know, multiple partners and all that stuff. He brags about that stuff, but he’s got no business being in government. It’s good riddance.”

Being out of the mainstream in one’s personal preferences and behavior has never (or should never) be a criterion in determining one’s expertise in doing science. I thought Paul was a Libertarian? To be honest, being a Libertarian should disqualify you from ever holding office, but fortunately I don’t have the power to make that decree.

Even worse, there is a candidate running to replace Dan Crenshaw, which normally I’d approve of — he’s poison. But the person running against him is Valentina Gomez, a woman who is upset that there are lesbians in the WNBA, who wants to take a flamethrower to books that “groom” children.

The video ends with an image of Gomez smiling into the camera, holding an AR-15 with an ammunition holder tied around her waist in front of a Tesla Cybertruck.

Charming. Fortunately, she has little hope of getting elected — she previously ran for the Secretary of State of Missouri, and came in 6th place with 8% of the vote. That’s more than she deserved, but it tells you about the power of being rabidly anti-gay.

The FtB Podcast tomorrow

Tomorrow at 2pm Pacific Time, the crew here at Freethoughtblogs are going to talk about some of the books we’ve read, with a focus on what we can learn for our own societies from them.

(Note: I’ve been really terribly sick today, but I think it’s one of those 24 hour things, so I hope I’ll be in shape to participate. Should be.)

RESCHEDULED: We’ll host this podcast on Saturday, 13 September instead.

Quick! Time to mobilize the 2nd amendment-worshipping gun fondlers!

They’re coming to take away the guns!

“In the wake of the Minneapolis Catholic church shooting, senior Justice Department officials are weighing proposals to limit transgender people’s right to possess firearms,” CNN reports.

“Such a move would represent a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration’s fight against the rights of transgender Americans.”

Interesting. The majority of trans people are not mass murderers, so this is a plan to punish the innocent for one person’s actions. As long as we’re going down this road, I must point out that 98% of the perpetrators of these shootings are men, and further, that the majority are white men.

Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and August 2025, by shooter’s race or ethnicity

Obviously, the most effective approach would to limit white men’s right to possess firearms. It’s the only statistically sensible plan.

Never learn anatomy from social media

It’s another anatomical atrocity from the bowels of the internet. Be amazed at the magnitude of the physical differences between men and women (although I hope this was exaggerated by some online comedian.)

I had no idea that women’s larger hips were all filled with an enlarged bony structure, contrary to my limited experience, or that women’s feet evolved specifically for wearing high heels.

Chorus: a very very bad idea

I’d heard a few rumors about this program, Chorus, in which pro-Democrat ‘influencers’ formed a bloc to coordinate their support for liberal policies, which superficially sounded like a good idea, except for how it is implemented. Members had to swear secrecy, promise to never criticize their fellow Chorus members, and get their opinions vetted by their paymasters. This sounds an awful lot like the secret deal Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson made with Russians, except that the pay was much lower, $8000/month rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars. I consider transparency to be a significant value, so Chorus goes directly against that.

Rebecca Watson summarizes the story for us.

I’m convinced now that I shouldn’t trust Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman, because they are unable to be forthright about their perspective or who is paying them. I like my sources to be open and unconstrained by big money.